GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Maximus

  Please read the following brief paragraph carefully:

  "Once again, the ruling ecclesiastical class suppressed efforts to make God’s Word available to their flock. They violently silenced a voice that pointed to some of the errors of their non-Biblical beliefs. They proved to be among the worst enemies of religious freedom and truth. Sadly, this is a stance that in various ways survives even to our day."

  Know where it’s from? The Watchtower, February 15, 2000, pp. 26-29. It’s the conclusion to the article on Cyril Lucaris, "A Man Who Valued the Bible." Lucaris was the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Orthodox Church in the 17th century, who was deeply concerned about deplorable spiritual conditions. He was ultimately strangled for his attempts "to enlighten and uplift the educational level of his clergy and flock."

  The second article of his "Confession" declares that the Scriptures are inspired by God and that their authority exceeds that of the church. In other articles he maintained Christ is the sole Mediator and Head of the congregation.

  After his death a synod declared his thoughts heresy, declaring that the Scriptures "should be read, not by just anyone, but only by the ones peering into the deep things of the spirit after having done appropriate research"!

  Reflect on the quality of thought which authored that powerful paragraph quoted above. Is there a take-home message?

  Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, who is the ecclesiastical class today? Who are the final authority in telling you what the Scriptures actually mean? Who would almost literally strangle someone who disagrees with their infallibility?

  Acccording to the Watchtower, "Lucaris made commendable efforts to have the Bible be the authority on church doctrine and to educate people about its teachings." They note his dream was not realized of seeing the Church return to "evangelical simplicity."

  Theologian Raymond Brown could have written a book about the word, but chose another’s simple definition: ‘Evangelism? That’s one beggar telling another where the food is.’

  Ironic that those who need to learn the lesson of Lucaris will heed it least.

  Should you care to revisit the article, think of the battered men whom you know outside—and still inside—who want the Word to be the final authority.

  Is anyone else struck by the clarity of this article and its powerful message?

  Maximus

  For CQ and others who have fought the good fight

  .
• 

  Nicodemus

  Maximus,

  Thanks for bringing that fine article back to all of our attention.

  You are absolutely correct that the article is fascinating on many levels. My take at the time was that it was written by someone very intelligent and perceptive, and also with a keen sense of certain ironies.

  The sad thing to me is that I didn't hear much talk about this article from local brothers and sisters I know.

  Nicodemus
• 

  Amazing

  Maximus: Excellent points, and well applied. It does make us wonder if the Society is having some kind of internal political and policy war, such that they could write this kind of material, and at the same time be its greatest enemy. Thanks again. - Amazing
• 

  peterstride

  Once again, the society likes to point out the imperfections of others, without applying the same standards to themselves.

  Sad.

  Peter Stride
• 

  Copernicus

  When I began studying with the Witness, I happened upon a very well done movie relating the life and times of Jan Hus, a man who suffered much the same fate, for the same reasons, as Cyril Lucaris. Sadly, Hus failed to realize (until it was too late) the nature of the beast confronting him; in the form of the council that sentenced him to death for heresy. From what I’ve read, Lucaris also failed to ascertain the true nature of those religious authorities that confronted him as well. Both men were deluded in that they believed that “truth” was of some real concern to the “ruling ecclesiastical class” of their time, and that the examination of biblical precedents would result in doctrinal and procedural modifications by the hierarchy.

  It seems obvious, in historical retrospect, that power and the maintenance of the prevailing status quo was the only interest of the religious authorities of those days. Committing murder in the “greater interest” of preserving the mother church was much preferred to acknowledging error and dealing with the consequences.

  Would things really be much different today? Is there a lesson that all can learn from the experiences of these men, and those like them?

  What really upsets me is the way the Society will arrogate, indirectly, the membership of others held in high moral esteem, such as Lucaris - men such as Hus, Wycliff, Luther, etc. They do this by conferring, posthumously, the title of "anointed" upon them and thereby creating a nonexistent link between themselves and others whose credibility they covet. What a game, hey?

  The degree of hypocrisy evident in the WT article you mentioned is mind boggling. How can they do it?
• 

  Pathofthorns

  I also remember that article, but never drew the connection you mentioned at the time. The blatant hypocrisy in what they were writing despite what they themselves do was obvious.

  Interestingly, soon after that article, another article which also commented along the same lines was published. It was called: "Religious Intolerance Now Admitted". Here is a quote from the April 8, 2000 Awake, page 14:

  Why did [Queen] Mary order so many people burned to death? She had been taught that heretics were traitors to God, and she thought it her duty to cut out their influence before they infected the whole nation. She listened to her conscience but ignored the rights of others whose conscience led them in another direction.

  Whether or not the motivation for the comments is what you are suggesting, the possibility is certainly intriguing.

  Path
• 

  Victor_E

  It has been known for years among different insider circles that there are two factions in the tower. One is the militant hardliner service department boys that are responsible for the hard-line articles in the Watchtower and one of moderates that write in the Awake.

  There is no question that the tower is in dissonance, much like a psychotic mother that speaks out of both ends of her mouth giving mixed messages. Out of one end she delivers love and tenderness and out of the other punitive harsh judgments. This type of phenomena creates children who are twisted. Does this help explain in part why JWs are twisted? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm????

  Victor Escalante
• 

  Bendrr

  Maximus, the "appropriate research" phrase stands out in my mind as a big "what the hell?!"
  If the Bible is the authority, what is this other research?
  From what I can remember, each book of the King James Version was voted on by some body way back when and some books only made it in by one vote. So what books were voted out?
  What research resources does The Empire, or for that matter The Vatican or any other religious authority have that we laypersons don't have access to that apparenty we shouldn't have access to? I'm sorry, is there something in the 68'th or 85'th book of the Bible which I don't know and never should because that particular book was deemed unnaceptable for me way back in medieval times?
  mike.

  "Well done, Blind Squirrel! You've found an impressive nut!
• 

  voltaire

  It's interesting that the society always berated the Catholic church for not allowing its members to read the Bible. The society allows JWs to read the Bible as much as they want but doesn't allow them to reach any conclusions other than those approved by the society. What good does it do to be able to read the Bible under such circumstances. At least the Catholic church was honest. "Don't read the Bible", they said, "because you can't understand it." The WTS society has created an illusion of independant study. "Here are the conclusions you are going to reach, now read this", summarizes their approach. There is no difference in the end.
• 

  Copernicus

  Victor:

  There is no question that the tower is in dissonance, much like a psychotic mother that speaks out of both ends of her mouth giving mixed messages.

  Interesting analogy. I had a real mother like that. . . maybe that’s why I was drawn to the Tower for a while in the first place.